 |
|
Add to My Group
|
November 22, 2007 at 16:13:19
by Paul Rye Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
In a recent article, Army Improperly Awarded $150 Billion KBR Contract, a writer concluded, “Travesties such as this are only compounded by the immense debt created by this war, and the fact that our children will be paying it off for decades.” The second link was to an article intensely critical of the Federal Reserve, “Who’s Responsible for the National Debt?” A few weeks later, the same writer went overboard trying to ridicule Ron Paul and his followers for, among other things, wanting to get rid of the Federal Reserve. “Who’s Responsible for the National Debt” explains how the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 provided the means for government to sell generations of Americans into slavery to the national debt. And yet, the writer went bonkers anyway, calling Ron Paul an extremist and a kook, for wanting to abolish the Federal Reserve, and horrors, because an alternative currency coin dealer, Liberty Dollar, put the presidential candidate’s face on some of its coins. What are we to make of people who rail against the very things that Ron Paul does but call him a kook for proposing to do something about it? The way I understand people who take these positions is to assume they believe the solution is to vote better people into office: not to reform the laws, not to reform or eliminate government agencies, not to allow private competition with the government, not to reduce the size of government, and not to adhere to the Constitution. There’s nothing wrong with the system; it’s all about choosing the “right” people. What is difficult for me to understand is how otherwise well-informed people fail to see it is not just the people they elect that matters. Political institutions themselves cause much of people’s bad behavior. To some it’s fine to say the Founding Fathers understood that, and that is why they established checks and balances in the Constitution. Modern people, however, are pretty blasé about that old “piece of paper”. So, let me tell you about the Stanford University Prison Experiment of 1971. It is quite famous in the history of psychology. The results of the experiment are said to support situational attributions of behavior rather than dispositional attribution. That’s fancy talk meaning situations cause participants' behavior, rather than anything inherent in their individual personality. Put ordinary people in a situation where the rules mimic a traditional prison environment and with breathtaking speed you get people who would normally treat their neighbors quite nicely become sadistic guards and abuse prisoners. 
Politically, the implications of the principle are obvious. Maybe that is why politicians, patriots, and pundits generally avoid mentioning it. Kind of puts a damper on election coverage to say, “None of these eight candidates are going to make a difference.”
But like it or not, the choice is this. Create a flawed political institution, and it doesn’t matter who the participants are, the result will be abuses unless someone reforms the system. So, there is no point in electing a president who is not a principled reformer. Even then, there is a risk that the candidate will not turn out to be who he said he was (or she). Also, the system itself will resist reformation. Or, the new president might succumb to institutional pressures inherent in the new job. But, if you do not elect a principled reformer, there is practically no chance the government will spontaneously reform itself, unless outside competition or revolution forces it to change.
Getting back to the Federal Reserve, our national bank that issues Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs), the basic unit of which is the dollar, it is a grossly flawed part of our political-economic system, a cartel of private banks. The FRN perpetually loses its value because it is backed by nothing except the point of a gun. These phrases I’m sure will tend to press many people’s hot buttons, so they deserve an explanation at length.
1. The FRN perpetually loses its value. What gives the FRN whatever intrinsic value it has? There is scarcity, which depends on how many are created. For most people, including me, the creation of FRNs is a complex and difficult to understand process, difficult to pin down. It takes research and patience to figure out, and it would take too long to explain in detail here, however, it is worth learning about if you have the time. The Fed does not really need to use a printing press. It can create money electronically, and part of this money creation is done to fill the gap when the government has made more promises than it can keep and cannot otherwise pay its bills. Another part of FRN creation is done simply to tinker with the economy. For more information go to the educational website Wizards of Money. Suffice it to say that the Fed can create money any time it wants, and there is profit in doing so, because insiders at the Fed will always know the timing of their monetary tinkering and how it will affect markets in advance, the first ones to get their hands on the “new money” will get the most benefit, and there is no public oversight or control of the Fed. So, the Fed will always create a lot of FRNs. There more there are, the less each one is worth. Inflation is what I am talking about.
Also, along this line of thought, the official reason given by the Fed to tinker with the economy is to “stimulate, manage, or smooth out the bumps in the economy”. The rationale is basically that if people have more money to spend, they will spend it, and other people will engage in productive activity to capture those new dollars, or if the economy gets too warm or too cold, the Fed can tinker with the money supply, affect interest rates, and manage the situation. Unfortunately, it is just not true the Fed can beneficially affect the economy to a significant extent. Decades of data prove that underlying economic activity is minimally affected and boom/bust cycles are made significantly worse by the monetary tinkering of the Fed.
Although, the present value of the FRN is determined by its current scarcity, the FRN is destined to become less scarce each year as more dollars are created. To make it harder for you to see how many FRNs are being created the Fed recently eliminated its M3 money supply statistic. Its scarcity not being constant, the dollar perpetually loses its value.
2. The FRN is backed by nothing. Our money used to be backed by gold. There was no question what it was worth. You could redeem dollars for gold at a fixed rate of exchange. There is one and only one fundamental reason why the U.S. and the Fed went off the gold standard in 1933. The Fed printed more FRNs than the gold reserves could support at the fixed exchange rate. There is a term for that in the Constitution. It is called debasing the currency, and it used to be considered a serious crime. In ancient times, it was a crime deserving of the death penalty. In 1944, Bretton Woods established a system of fixed international currency exchange rates within narrow bounds in terms of gold. Again, the Fed printed more FRNs than the gold reserves could support, and the Bretton Woods agreement collapsed in 1971, at which time all connection between the U.S. dollar and gold was severed. In all fairness, other nations were debasing their national currencies, too. After going completely off the gold standard and fixed exchange rates in terms of gold, the FRN is now backed by nothing.
3. The FRN is backed by nothing except the point of a gun. Why do people use the FRN at all if it is perpetually losing its value and it is backed by nothing? The FRN is legal tender. Legal tender is not hard to understand. It means that if someone offers you FRNs to pay for something, unlike the Liberty Dollar coins mentioned earlier, you are required by law to accept FRNs as payment for goods and services. Federal law establishes legal tender status for the FRN. Refuse to accept them as payment or try to counterfeit them, and you are in violation of Federal law. Except for this legal status, the FRN would not have a leg to stand on. Given an alternative currency that maintains its value, or a tangible backing for the FRN, people would exchange the FRN for the alternative currency or the thing that backs it.
The FRN is also said to be backed by something called the “full faith and credit” of the United States. Legally, that means a commitment by the U.S. government to pay interest and principal on its debt, including pledging its full taxing and borrowing power. In other words, when the government makes more promises than it can keep with the funds it has, it borrows money and pledges to pay it back by raising taxes later or by borrowing even more money. The government effectively pledges that you the taxpayer will pay it back later, and if you do not agree to raise taxes next year, it will borrow even more money on your behalf to cover next year’s shortfall. So you, as a citizen and taxpayer, have no control over the indebtedness incurred on your behalf by the government, even if you manage to stop the government from raising taxes.
As the record shows, there is no limitation on the government’s ability to make promises it cannot keep. So, “full faith and credit” really means “credit”, as in the old “Please lend me more money … Yours for more credit” joke letters that used to make the rounds. You do not “owe it to yourself” as politicians have said in the past. You owe it to the people who hold the notes – T-bills and bonds, and the government will tax you to pay them. Today, a large part of the debt is owed to foreigners. The U.S. government for systemic reasons cannot and will not ever pay off the national debt.
The FRN is not scarce, politicians keep making promises they cannot fully pay for, the Fed keeps printing more and more of them, the national debt will never be paid off, the full faith and credit of the United States means more borrowing, and the FRN will become less scarce and worth even less in the future. Therefore, the only thing maintaining the value of the FRN is the legal tender law. And, the only thing backing up the legal tender law is the point of a gun.
OK, so you read all that and think, so what? You do not get the feeling that you are suffering because of some abstract argument about the Federal Reserve and the value of a dollar. Here are some reasons why you should:
1 | 2
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
| 15 comments |
|
Right On!
The Fed is what is running up our national debt. When they say America is rich it's all A lie. We are the worlds largest debtor nation and the Fed controlls most of our government officials. The Fed however does not controll Ron Paul and if enough Americans can wake-up to the control masters (monopoly men) that is the Fed we can get rid of them and start gaining control over our government once again. Great article! by J. Vorhees (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 67 comments) on Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 5:24:16 PM  (0+)
|
|
My thanks
Thank you for this well written article. by Linda Inveninato (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Friday, Nov 23, 2007 at 6:44:22 AM (0+)
|
|
Excellent Observation
Paul, As the character Frank Barone from "Everybody Loves Raymond" fame would say: "Holy crap!" You've made a very profound observation about something that I think all of us are guilty of from time to time. We whine and complain about the need to do something, but then we chicken out when the time comes to actually walk the walk. I see the opportunity to vote for Ron Paul as one that I may not see again in my lifetime. If we elect yet another slick, shallow president who wallows in the same gray area politics and mud wrestling matches with Congress, we'll certainly deserve the sudden collapse of this house of cards called our economy that is almost certainly will happen before we get to enjoy our hard-earned nesteggs. by Darryl Schmitz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Friday, Nov 23, 2007 at 9:48:19 AM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul knows a scam when he sees one
Thanks, Paul, for explaining a complicated subject in simple layman's terms. I'll be referring to this article from time to time - since my way of leaving it to like-minded economists... and whatnot... isn't working so well... these days. Personally, it's always been a little hard for me to cogently explain what I've always known was so obviously... just a huge scam... in a rigged system... anyway. And - you know how it is - words can fail us, more often than not. As a Paul supporter, however, I'm smart enough to tell when somebody's speaking with candor or deliberately glossing over the truth - which is why I've become a volunteer promoting and contributing to the good doctor's election campaign. So now that we know the money's counterfeit - the Fed and the income tax are both unconstitutional - how about we agree corporatism is yet another form of public welfare... we can well do... without? After all, the Law of Unintended Consequences, or blowback, is a real phenomenon, wouldn't you say? I also don't like people sucking up to the government for handouts OR fat contracts either - at least without some transparency... in a democratic process... or my personal stamp of approval. And if this weren't enough, may I recommend you do a search sometime for communitarianism, communitarian law, and anti-communitarian league? Here's how the elites behind the scenes have been preparing to enslave us - not to mention, trade away American sovereignty - in an all-inclusive, one helluva... grandiose scheme. Man, it seems like the fun never ends... when exploring all the ways... to game this corruptible system. But then, I'm rather disinclined... to think an elitist's idea of fun... will ever the same as mine! by bejeezus (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Friday, Nov 23, 2007 at 11:51:23 AM (0+)
|
|
Bejeesus
You guys never quit. If anyone wants a list of the organized horde to attack anyone who says what a "nut" case Ron Paul really is, go to the November 15 article written by Mike Kuykendall. Write down the names of those attacking Mike to notice how many of these same names keep appearing. The article ran with over a hundred articles some very laborious and very long and most making ad hominem attacks on Mike. Ron Paul is back in the covered wagon days and is just a little to the right of Adolph Hitler, Ghenghis Kahn, Mohammed, and Attila the Hun. If you hate free public education, national health care, medicare, interstate, roads, national museum and parks, national libraries, a navy, an army, an Air Force, national postal sytem, CIA (not turned over to big business), against labor unions, for degregulatoin of banks-- then vote for Ron Paul. He is your man. Phil. by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Friday, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:07:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Sticks and Stones
Has it ever occurred to you that any candidate who advocates reigning in the excesses and mistakes of government would attract similar followers and be branded an extremist? That is not to say all his followers would be of that type, but certainly many would. I would expect Ron Paul to attract many people who are anti-government for whatever reason, who else is actually advocating real reform, however, that does not imply the bulk of his following is not coming from people you would have a more difficult time smearing. Take a look. Ron Paul is big on college campuses. Young people, college students, do not generally support war-mongering fascist murders. Do you realize that you have not responded at all to the main thrust of the article, what was written about the Federal Reserve Bank? Are you a defender of it? Is it good for America? Has it occurred to you that you have essentially categorized the people who wrote our Constitution and people who still believe in it, in the same category as Hitler, Ghenghis Kahn, Mohammed, and Attila the Hun? Yes, it will take more than a little name-calling to make us quit. by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 23, 2007 at 1:33:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Paul
And you are saying Ron Paul is not an extremist? Do you really think most Americans want to do away with Federal Government programs such as SS, Medicare, the public school sytem and go back to pre-depression banking sytems as he wants to do and those are not extreme positions? I guess they are not if you are a Norquist fan. Paul, most people think government is a good thing or should be a good think to serve as an instrument for the good. From what I can gather about RP is that he wishes to destroy all the LBJ programs, the FDR programs and especially the anti-trust and anti-monoply laws of Teddy Roosevelt. My postion is pretty simple: 1. Maintain and reinforce what we have with present social programs. 2. Return to the graduate income tax percentages during Truman and Eisenhower's Administrations. 3. Take profit out of health care much like France has with every citizen fully covered. 4. Make University education as free as Primary and Secondary Schools with good grade standards. A college graduate helps us all. A high school drop out hurts us all. 5. Do away with the parole system, shorten sentences, and get the non-violent criminals out of prisons. 6. Legalize drugs by putting them under the medical care sytem as it is done in most of Europe and England. 7. Have a universal draft where every one must give two years of service to their country right out of high school much as Isreal had in the seventies and eighties. 7. Do all of this fast because I am sixty-seven years old. Ain't mad, just disagree, Phil. by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Friday, Nov 23, 2007 at 10:47:02 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thank You for Your Comments
Phil, Thank you for the distinct change in tone and being willing to discuss issues. I think the political insult hurled most often in the U.S. is to say that someone is on the fringe in some way, so I do not see the point of debating whether or not Ron Paul is an extremist or not. It’s just a way of trying to marginalize him. Most young Americans who actually understand how Social Security works want to do away with it. Most older Americans who were taught in public factory-schools to trust the Federal Government and paid into Social Security for 45 years are appalled that anyone would suggest taking it away from them. Ron Paul does not suggest taking it away from older people, but gradually phasing the program out. He recognizes that it would be unfair to penalize people who were taught to trust the system. Regarding Medicare, the public school system, and pre-depression banking systems, politicians the world over know that making promises of government benefits is the way to get elected and stay in office. I think what you fear is that if Medicare were to be eliminated, then you and people your age would lose your prescription drug benefits, and nothing would take the place of Medicare. Life gets scary as you get older and realize that you will probably have to life on your savings and S.S. However, if you understood my article, inflation is your worst enemy, not Ron Paul. Not that I would favor the idea, but why couldn’t states create their own version of Medicare, or cities for that matter? Better yet, why couldn’t the states establish voluntary retirement and medical savings programs, which a citizen could choose to pay into their whole working life? That would overcome an objection many have about S.S., that people 18-55 years old are subsidizing people who are on S.S. now, and the fund will be insufficient to cover them when they retire. Our government factory-schools today still function basically the same way they did over 100 years ago when they were designed to prepare young people for work in American factories such as the Carnegie steel mills, complete with bells to signal when to start work, stop work, recess, and lunch. When I started teaching at my high school over seven years ago, about half the classrooms had an Internet connection. It took until this year to finish the job. I teach one-size-fits-all mathematics at one of those schools after twenty years in engineering. I can tell you it is pretty degrading at times, to the students. No more than 5% will every have the personality suited to a study of mathematics. Yet there is no other viable option for them. The school is intent on working to the state standards that are modeled on federal standards. The goal is college prep, no matter if they are going to college or not, no matter if they are going into work that requires mathematics or not. Critical thinking is a buzz word; it is not effectively taught. I went to a PTA meeting many years ago, with the naïve intent of making suggestions about my son’s elementary school curriculum and was basically told to shut up by the school principal. If I wanted to volunteer to make and serve hot dogs at a school event, fine. Otherwise, stay home. If our intent as a society is to prepare all the young people I see for a productive life in a high tech world, our government factory-schools are not doing that. Just giving people their education dollars back in an education account established for each child and letting parents decide how to spend them would be a vast improvement. Whoever pays makes the rules. If parents do not pay for school, they will never make the rules. I’m no expert on pre-depression banks but a quick review on Wikipedia indicates that the Fed is the third try at a national bank in the U.S. We had two prior experiments with national banks. All the old banking panics and bank failures appear due to one thing – debasing the currency. Bank notes could not be redeemed. Yet, during the period 1837-1862, when so many banks were failing, the value of money – gold and silver – was very constant. Makes you wonder what games the banks were playing with their notes, don’t you think? Even with the third national bank, the Federal Reserve, debasing its currency, we had a relatively stable currency due to the gold standard. When we went completely off the gold standard in 1971, inflation became severe and entrenched. At least in the old days, when a bank failed, they didn’t all fail. Kind of like every kind of other business, some failed some didn’t. Now, what will happen when the Fed fails? You should fear that. I’ve never heard of Norquist. Phil, don’t be lazy. If you think RP wishes to destroy all the LBJ programs, all the FDR programs, and the anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws of Teddy Roosevelt, then say so or read his actual positions and come back and state them. I’m no more an expert on every one of his positions than I was on any other candidate I’ve supported in the past. I trust him. I like his principles, and I know enough about some of his positions to know that he is consistent and thinks things through, but I do not have the time or energy to research every one of his positions today. As I learn more myself, I would be happy to respond. Just do not have time right now. Regarding your stated positions 1. Our present social programs are not so much excessive as they are flawed. If they are eliminated that does not necessarily imply that nothing will replace them. 2. Returning to the graduated income tax percentages during Truman and Eisenhower's Administrations will not solve the problem of inflation and the national debt. 3. A cursory look at French health care tells me we might learn a thing or two from them, more people covered, good quality of care, less cost overall. But, I don’t think you can take profit out of the health care business. An indication of this is that health care costs in the French system are rising. 4. Education is good, but nothing is free. Someone always pays for it, and the person who pays for it controls it. Make all education free – paid for by the government and you give all control of it to the government and the special interests that control the government. Don’t do it. 5. I’m for institutionalizing fewer people in the prison system, but I’m no expert on the best way to do it. 6. The best argument for legalizing drugs is that it would cost less than the “war on drugs”, and the drop in cost of the drugs would reduce crime by addicts and put drug dealers out of business. 7. If the U.S. military were actually used only for national defense I would wholeheartedly agree with requiring all citizens to give two years of service to their country right out of high school, but if I voted for it and my son were drafted and died to make the world safe for the United Fruit Company or Exxon, I don't think I could go on living. 8. Wish I was retired but I’ll probably have to work until I’m seventy at which time my S.S. benefits might kick in, if the system isn't insolvent then or the eligibility date hasn't been moved back even later. We need changes Phil, if not for us, then for our children. Don’t trust the nanny-state to look after them. Paul by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 3:28:47 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ron Paul Right On Target & Fully Understands What We Face.
Obviously Phil [pratliff94], you don’t get it do you? The entire monetary system is built upon a foundation of debt. Everything you hold dear is built upon a system that has a mathematical point of termination. Every single dollar in circulation, digital or physical, has been BORROWED into existence. The expansion of the economy totally depends on the expansion of the debt. There comes a time however, when the cost of servicing that debt becomes greater than the ability of the economy to maintain its growth and the debt begins to siphon off more and more of economic prosperity. This Fiat System that you obviously tout as wonderful in providing free public education, national health care, medicare, interstate roads, national museums, parks, etc. reached its Practical Possible Lifespan a few years ago, this is evidenced by the growing lack of tolerance of the economy to maintain itself under minor disruptions, such as what was once considered small interest rate hikes. Soon, very soon, the system will enter a stage called the Maximum Possible Lifespan, at that point you will begin to see disruptions and economic dislocations take place that will eventually cause the entire system to suffer failure. It is a well-known fact that every fiat system always fails because it is mathematically impossible for it to continue past a certain stage between the ratios of debt to growth. This is not a political issue we are facing as you suppose, but one that will so drastically change the face of this country if something is not done then we really will be facing a life where even a covered wagon would be considered a luxury. It is apparent that you don’t have a clue about what you are talking about, no offense is meant by that, but just read your post again. If you did have a clue then you would know that this Federal Reserve Fiat System is a total sham. Today it takes over $20,0000.00 to purchase what $1,000.00 bought in 1913, before the Federal Reserve Act. Now, it is not that the price of goods and services has risen so high, but your “money” has been systematically devalued through inflation. If you look at inflation charts over the past 200 years you will see a very interesting thing. Inflation was almost nil until 1913, then it began to moderately rise until 1933 and the FDR Fraud. At that point there was a jump and a steady rise until 1971-72 when Nixon completely took this country a total fiat currency. At that point, you will notice a rapid and sharp rise on the inflation chart and with that rise you will note that the buying power of the people was drastically diminished. Today we labor for pennies on the dollar and everyone smiles because they may get a raise, or a cost of living increase, or a minimum raise increase….gosh, aren’t we a happy compliant bunch in this country. All the while the government, with the Banking Cartel called the Central Banking System, walks away with the wealth of this nation while maintaining a country of productive serfs. Everything we know, from our investments, our pensions, our insurance, our savings, our 401Ks, everything is built on a monetary system that is rapidly reaching that Maximum Possible Lifespan, its inherent terminal point where it is no longer viable. What will you do when the final stage of collapse begins to wreak havoc on everything you are comfortable with in your life? What will you and your family do when it cost $100, $200 or $1000 or more for a loaf of bread? Don’t think it can happen? Keep sticking your head in that cozy bed of sand. by Republicae (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Friday, Nov 23, 2007 at 2:43:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Pigs in Mud
Republicae, Technically, there is a small amount of legal tender FRN currency in existence called “base money” that would not disappear along with the extinguishment of all debt. Also, although there are a large number of people who understand quite well the mathematics of a debt-based fiat currency, they still represent only a tiny fraction of the public. So, it is not accurate to say it is a well-known fact – among the public - that every fiat system always fails. In my mathematics class on Wednesday, I asked who among my students had taken a business or economics class, and two thirds of the hands went up. I pulled a dollar out of my wallet and then asked, “Who can tell me what this is worth?” After ten minutes no one had yet given any sensible answer. Finally, I said “What can you buy for one dollar?” Students replied, “a big mac, a jumbo jack, etc” I said, “You are on the right track. Now, did you know that when I was a kid, you could go to MacDonald’s and get a hamburger, fries, and a Coke for 35 cents?” The public schools just won’t teach precisely what determines the value of a FRN dollar, or what causes inflation, and that is just one consequence of having a Federal Department of Education. The role of the Federal Reserve in creating: money, the national debt, and inflation, is not widely known or understood. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to explain it again and again. Bejeesus did not credit any of the government services you mentioned to the fiat system of the Federal Reserve. The gist of Bejeesus’ comments was he(she) found some the responses to Mike Kuykendall’s article distasteful and characterized Ron Paul’s political views as more extreme than those of a short list of mass-murderers. So, some of the responses to Mike Kuykendall were more hostile than helpful, and Bejeesus was not informed but offended. Then Bejeesus did the same thing. I wonder how readers Muslim's took Bejeesus’ inclusion of Mohammed on a list of mass murderers. Pretty extreme don’t you think? I’m sure you understood what I was saying about the Fed; I would just caution you about trying to wrestle a pig in mud. That is a pig’s game. Let the pigs offend others, and let us keep our heads. by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 23, 2007 at 5:27:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Correction
Oops, sorry Bejesus. Got your name mixed up with pratliff94, because pratliff94 had your name at the top of his(her) comment. A thousand pardons. by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 23, 2007 at 5:35:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Paul
My post was above "Republicae" because it was a direct reply to your comment. I hit the "reply" button under your comment, and that is were it is inserted. We can use all the argument in the world, but the Progressive will always ask such things as does Ron Paul control the filty rich or does he give them such a "laissez-faire" approach that the corporations and obscenly rich control everything from the media, to health, to energy, to education. I have a sneaky feeling that Ron Paul is against universal health care with fifty million Americans without any health insurance whatever. I have a sneaky suspicion that he is against labor unions and every program that demands a fair or livable wage. Do you refute this? Phil by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Friday, Nov 23, 2007 at 11:11:55 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Our Children Need be Brave to Win Back Their Government
Phil, Nobody controls the filthy rich, not now, especially not in the last twenty years. None of the front runners in the Presidential campaign appear willing even to try. I think an area that requires research and great thought is how to take control of government away from corporations and the super rich and back to the people. I think the worry you have expressed about Ron Paul in this regard goes beyond the question of whether a candidate is a strict Constitutionalist or a Progressive. If I had more time, I would try to explain how monopolies cannot endure without government protection, therefore monopolies that do endure are doing so by buying government protection. In doing so, they corrupt government. A more cogent question then is how to prevent corporations and the super rich from corrupting governments. As long as we Americans remain focused on the question of who will control the corporations and super rich, we miss the point, I think. We should focus not on how to control them, but how to control our own leaders and how to prevent our leaders from controlling us. The corporations and super rich use government to control us. We need to put a stop to that. Concerning health care, on his website, Ron Paul says he supports: So, I would say you are probably right. It looks like he doesn’t support universal health care. You will not catch me lying, because I don’t lie, and if I don’t know or do not understand something, I just say so. You do not need to get all your answers from me, though. Do your homework, heh, heh. (Sorry, that's a teacher joke.) Just go to his website and check out his positions on the issues. Concerning universal health care, labor unions, and programs that demand a fair or livable wage, here is what I think about all three as a whole. No law or government program can guarranty heath and prosperity for all, no government program is efficient, and we should not be looking to government to solve all our problems for us. We should only look to government to help with problems that cannot be solved any other way. Government should primarily be involved preventing and resolving things, not in providing services. Government should: fight defensive wars, prevent crime, resolve contract disputes, prosecute violations of civil rights, etc. It should not provide a laundry list of benefits that constitute a cradle-to-grave nanny-state, putting: cash in your pocket, food on your table, and drugs in your medicine cabinet. Someone has to pay for or produce all those things, so you have to pay for them. You cannot get them for free. Government cannot provide them efficiently, so you should not ask it to. We make ourselves all poorer when we ask it to. Paul by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 24, 2007 at 4:34:21 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Republicae
I get it all right. I am just not willing to go back to pre-depression policies of the banking sytems. Ron Paul is sort of Libertarian and yet goes further than they do in some ways. I think the things done by Theodore Roosevelt with anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws were correct. I think the graduated income tax is wonderful along with social security. I think Medicare and Medicaid, WICK, DHS, Department of Education, absolute universal health care is great. I think you and the writer try to bring Ron Paul off as a Progressive Democrat in hiding when he is really farther right wing than GWB, but seems to be an honest man, but honestly in error. You are going to change very few minds of real Democrats and real Progressives on this blog. Like I said. I ain't mad, just really disagree with you. Phil. by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Friday, Nov 23, 2007 at 11:01:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Engaging the Issues
Phil, I would not be willing to go back to pre-depression policies of the banking system either. Certainly, economic theory has progressed greatly since then. For more information about the direction a reform of our banking system might go, take a look at The Future of Money by Bernard Leitaer. I think the things done by Theodore Roosevelt with anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws were correct also and would not support scrapping those laws. There is nothing wrong with having a government mechanism to break up government-protected monopolies. Although, you might want to ask why there were only two major antitrust breakups in the U.S., Standard Oil and AT&T, why it took so long to get around to doing them, and why our government failed to break up IBM and Microsoft. The super-rich love graduated income taxes, too, because they know it means people all the way up to the upper middle class and will pay a disproportionate share of all government social services costs, while their income and assets remain sheltered using tax avoidance techniques unavailable to the “little people”. Meanwhile, inflation eats away the savings of anyone living on a fixed income. Re: social security. Hypothetically, would you pass a law requiring your own children to support you in retirement? If not, why would you pass a law requiring your neighbor’s children to help you? Nothing will solve the problem of the high cost of medicine until the monopoly of the AMA on doctor certification is broken. What about that monopoly? Long before learning of Ron Paul, I was interested in economics. I’m definitely not thinking of trying to “bring Ron Paul off as a Progressive Democrat” or anything else for that matter, except the guy says many things I agree with, so he's my guy, and he’s being attacked routinely instead of engaged on the issues. I could write out a list of Kucinich’s policy positions and call him a kook wearing a tinfoil hat who sees UFOs, or write a nasty hit-piece about him, cherry picking bits of information about him here and there, but why do it? Anyone can do that to practically any candidate. Writers that avoid that BS, engage and discuss issues, will find the angry horde evaporates. If they do not, then I will be on your side, criticizing the horde. This belittling of any candidate who is not a front runner makes me sick. It is no different than the students in my classroom who think they are so cool and popular that they can gang up and ridicule the small kid, the goofy kid, or the shy kid. Lastly, I expect compromise in politics. That does not mean I'm saying, "Hey, do not worry, I don't expect to really get rid of the Fed if my guy is elected." It means that if my guy does get elected, and the Fed does get dissolved, I expect the opposition to get something they can live with to replace it. Thanks again for your comments. Paul by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 27, 2007 at 1:34:30 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
